First let me state that I am a beginner by all means to the field of Astronomy.

This is what I think.
We have the universe , a (theorized) ever-expanding area of space. Now , suggesting that space IS infact ever-expanding , means that there is `anitspace` or `antimatter` for our area of space to take over. Now , saying that , what exactly is the `antimatter`? It`s the ultimate catch 22 of science. Saying that it is nothing means it is something , because we , as humans , can not percieve `nothingness`. We can not imagine , nor prove that there is something beyond space. Being nothing has to mean it is something , because we can have no nothing. Now what we DO know is that of the `known` universe , or what we can see. Beyond that , there is (theoretically) more space.

This probably makes no sense , so I will stop now. My main question is , how can there be nothing if nothing is made of something? If anything does exist beyond what we know as space , how can it be referred to as `nothing`? It has to be made of sometihng , which in turn disqualifies it as being nothing.

Like I stated earlier , this the the Ultimate catch 22 of science.

I`m sorry to have put you through this.
I apologize,
Moron Boy.

• RE: The edge of space - CL - March 12, 2000 - 20:57 UTC
  • RE: RE: The edge of space - Moron boy. - March 13, 2000 - 01:27 UTC
    • I got your answer right here, buddy ;P - Ghetalion - March 13, 2000 - 13:42 UTC
      • I disagree with this guy - - March 15, 2000 - 17:19 UTC
        • RE: I disagree with this guy - How do you figure? - March 31, 2000 - 03:20 UTC
    • RE: RE: RE: The edge of space - Bladesinger - March 15, 2000 - 01:00 UTC
• RE: The edge of space - Neo - March 17, 2000 - 10:01 UTC
• RE: The edge of space - i agree - May 29, 2000 - 04:02 UTC